Skip to main content

View Diary: Klein: Obama "Has no plans to get us out of Iraq" (83 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  slinker... (7+ / 0-)

      You already know this...but, see where all this "Obama has stabbed us in the back" criticism has taken us?

      My right to complain is more important than beating John McCain.

      by David Kroning on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:36:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Or playing with words (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slinkerwink, ZinZen

      as to what's a "plan" or an "occupation" or "out".

      Don't know, don't care.  Naomi had a better target in the hundred year guy.

      It's a people-powered movement of individuals. So just say it yourself and stop calling on Obama to be your puppet.

      by Inland on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:40:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Step One (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        srkp23, ZinZen, klizard

        Is making sure McCain doesn't get in.  He really does want a permanent colony and an endless war.

        However, there is a prevailing political wisdom that our "national interests" demand a troop presence in the Middle East to safeguard what is thought of as "our" oil.  I don't know how firmly wedded to that Obama is, but even during the Democratic debates he wouldn't commit to pulling out completely.

        AFTER he is elected, we need to push hard to shift to alternative energy and a foreign policy that doesn't require hundreds of bases all over the world.

    •  Yes because (14+ / 0-)

      Naomi Klein the Canadian that wrote The Shock Doctrine obviously has a GOP partisan axe to grind here...

      A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. ~Edward R. Murrow

      by ActivistGuy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:41:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Lying? (7+ / 0-)

      Nah. She's spot on. He's going to "downsize" the occupation, not end it. That squares with what he says. Plus, I don't think that Obama's going to be able to withdraw at the clip he says he will, anyway. He's always had enough caveats and wiggleroom to change his mind on that.

      I'm going to do everything I can personally to help him win the WH, but he himself says he wants to expand the military. He's going to make more war in Afghanistan and leave some troops in Iraq.

      Why would Klein lie? You might now like what she has to say, that doesn't make it a lie.

      Seul l'incrédule a droit au miracle. - Elias Canetti Road2DC

      by srkp23 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:52:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  she's an author advertising books (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slinkerwink, ZinZen

        extreme statements = attention = sales

        and the puritanical left, as always, is eager to play along, much to the GOP's delight.

      •  Though I would be happy with no military (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        klizard

        at all (I know, this is impractical, but so is murder), I never expected anyone to campaign without saying the military needs expansion at this time in light of the fact that it is overstressed at this time.  I don't believe Obama said he wanted to expand the military budget (Please no, where else is there to expand it to?), he said he wanted to expand the troop size.  I don't understand why the expectations on Obama are so much higher than on any other candidate.  It's not like we have ever had a mainstream nominee who was anti-military and anti-corporate in our political system as it stands today.  They're all flawed.  We won't get any better unless we change the system, the media, the educational system, and the minds of the people.

        •  He's talked about increased spending because so (0+ / 0-)

          much of our equipment is in bad shape from the war, even the National Guards...and the increased in medical benefits for vets...and the size of the military now. And he has always said we need to increase our troops in Afghanistan.

          As far as that goes both advisors said something like this

          Rather, the time horizon for redeployment would be negotiated with the Iraqi government and nested within a more assertive approach to regional diplomacy.

          In town halls he has always said things along those lines except didn't call it negotiating with them. He does say working with them but they have to know there will be time lines or they won't do what they need to. I wouldn't feel shocked if the Iraqi government did have a say even just to feel honored. They didn't have a say about us coming in and bring chaos. We shouldn't treat them like they don't matter. (That was me, not Obama)
          But he has always stressed regional diplomacy as well he should. I'd say we've had way too little of that except bush administration diplomacy is the opposite of diplomacy.

          We've all heard him say "as careful getting out as we were careless getting in". Good. And not just careful for our guys...Iraq was pretty stable before we came in. We don't just walk away, we have to do all we can in the way of diplomacy...give them the best chance for some stability.

          I do believe he will withdraw troops but if learning more alters the timeline somewhat that's OK.

          I never wanted us to go in...and my heart is with our troops but also very much with the people of that country who never asked for this chaos.

    •  She's been right about a lot of things (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Planet B, klizard

      So let's not jump to conclusions here. I hope she's wrong, but I fear she might be right. We need to get out there and elect Obama, give him a chance to come through on his promise. And then we hit the streets if he starts changing his mind.

    •  No, she's telling an important truth, (0+ / 0-)

      and it's the height of immaturity to accuse her of lying simply because you're uncomforable with her warning that voters have an obligation to work to keep their candidates honest.

      I've supported Obama because he has been the viable candidate most LIKELY to end the Occupation. But we can't know for sure he will; we have only his public remarks to go on, and at the moment those remarks suggest he would reduce troop strengths but leave residual forces to hold the Green Zone, train Iraqi army and police, and undertake operations against Al Qaeda in Iraq. That's unacceptable. We need to completely end the Occupation and withdraw all troops save for two brigades in Kurdistan (the Galbraith Plan).

      Please listen to the full recording. Naomi Klein is saying Obama is indeed our best chance for ending the Occupation but that it's not enough to elect him and then wash our hands of responsibility for ending the war. I believe Obama genuinely intends to try to end the Iraq debacle. But having the intention is not the same thing as having clear and unbending commitment to a plan.

      President Obama will immediately come under enormous pressure from the powers that be to compromise, to opt for a slower timetable with more modest force reductions and to settle for a large de facto permanent military presence.

      The only thing that can stop this: counterpressure from below. The antiwar movement must continue on and escalate under President Obama to pressure him to resist such compromise and do the right thing. This is the only way we'll get real change. Klein points out that FDR hadn't been long known for intent to radically reform American capitalism; he embarked on the New Deal because he was compelled to-- by the drastic nature of the situation, and by the fear of social unrest. FDR was essential to transcending the Depression-- but so was pressure from below.

      I'm dismayed by the number of people posting here who apparently think politics is just a spectator sport and their obligations end with casting a ballot. That kind of smug complacency has cheated us of real change time and time again.

       

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site